Table Selection For Newbies

[SugarPush]

Hi everyone. I have been having some troubles with my game at 1/2 and 2/4 and have made an adjustment that really seemed to help me out.

Previously I have selected the table by picking the one with the highest average pot size. I would jump on the wait list on several and then finally sit at the one that came up first.

The problems that I would run into would be several VP$IP 70+ super maniacs ramming and jamming like crazy. These are the people that Poker Tracker Rates as "Gamblers" with the dice icon. This caused me personally a couple of problems. First the variance in a game like that is extreme. When I would be in a big inevitable downswing I would lose confidence due to my lack of experience. The other bad side would be me going a bit on tilt thinking "Man these guys are crazy, I need to play more pots so that I can take their money." This was no good.

Granted I had only played 500 hands or so and was down only down 15 BB but it hurt my confidence and was making it difficult to play.

Lately, I have been scrolling down a couple of pages and picking tables with lower average pot. I set up Poker Tracker to data mine four tables for 15-20 min then choose a couple to wait list. I am looking for VP$IP>30 and more specifically 2 or 3 fish icons.

The main difference is that the passive fish are much easier for me to play against. The key word is: passive.

Man this is longer than I intended it to be. Let me restate my main point: If you are having some troubles at the big average pot sized tables (like me) maybe you should try scrolling down a page or two. You may end up with a more passive table that will be easier to play.

Comments?

[Dave G.]

I agree that playing against passive opponents is much easier, and if you're just getting started in your pokering endeavours that's definitely a good place to start to get a feel for the game. So your table selection idea is a good one in that regard.

Once you advance beyond the beginner stages though, you're going to have to learn how to deal with maniacs. They are even more ubiquitous at higher limits, and they can be insanely profitable to play against, as long as they don't suck out on you too often.

If a 15BB loss is enough to shake your confidence, I suspect that you either may not be sufficiently rolled for the game, are gambling with money you can't really afford to lose, or are just really thin skinned. Each of these is going to cause you a lot of trouble. My advice is to drop down to a lower limit until you've built your confidence up - a 15BB loss is nothing spectacular. Some days you will lose 100BB or more, even against passive opponents.

[chaz64]

[ QUOTE ]

Previously I have selected the table by picking the one with the highest average pot size. I would jump on the wait list on several and then finally sit at the one that came up first.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I do the same thing. Last night at one table I finished up 35 BB. Just now, I finished down over 20 BB. It happens, and you can't let it affect how you play.

[MrWookie47]

I used to pick tables by large pot size, too. The problem wasn't the maniacs (who you should relish), but the rocks and TAGs. As soon as a table has a high pot size, the waiting list jams full of rocks, and TAGs, bonus whores and good players. The sweet table breaks down too fast.

Instead, for those people comfortable with short-handed play (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=2536762&fpart =1&PHPSESSID=), sit down at a table with 4-6 people. First of all, most of the people there won't have a good understanding of short-handed play. Secondly, the table tends to fill up with bad players looking for instant action rather than TAGs.

[SugarPush]

At this level the money is pretty irrelevant to me. I just hate to lose. Even more I hate to lose if I am at a skill disadvantage. The only real measure that I have for being at a skill advantage is BB won/lost.

I guess I am willing to sacrifice total winning potential for a lower variance. My theory is that I will be less thin-skinned with a bunch of hands of winning poker under my belt.

If I lost 100BB right now I would have no reason, intellectually to believe that it was variace/bad luck instead of poor poker skills.

[MrWookie47]

There are two kinds of 2+2ers:

1. Those that have had a 150 BB+ downswinng.
2. Those that will.

[chaz64]

[ QUOTE ]

If I lost 100BB right now I would have no reason, intellectually to believe that it was variace/bad luck instead of poor poker skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it could easily be variance - that's why they say you should have a BR of 300 BB or so.

I only look at my BR once a month or so, and as long as it's bigger than last month, I'm happy.

[SugarPush]

So, now that I look back I should have titled this "Table Selection for the faint of heart." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think that one of the Poker skills that I need to work on is down-side variance tolerance - Odd but my up-side variance tolerance is just fine.

I think my plan will now be:

1) Play low variance passive tables, get experience and confidence.
2) Move to high-variance active tables to get used to the swings.
3) Move up limits (assuming positive earnings).

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that one of the Poker skills that I need to work on is down-side variance tolerance

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a form of tilt-control. Every player needs to master tilt-control. First you need to admit to yourself that you do go on tilt, then you need to recognize tilt on-the-fly, and finally you need to figure out how to either stop the tilt from happening, or make sure you don't lose money until you get back to off-tilt.

If you are looking for passive tables, then you want tables with medium average pot sizes.

I like variance, b/c the upside is high. If I want to play a full ring with high variance, then I like to sit at an empty table, and let the fish come to me. I get the very worst opponents, and they are bad in an over-aggressive way.

Also, you really need to learn short-handed play. Its a critical skill. Not only becasue you learn how to play in short-handed situations, but also becasue you learn how to maximize aggression but keep it under control, and react to the high-aggression of other players. You also learn to deal with variance, or die trying.

[SugarPush]

Wow. Let me get this straight. You sit at completely empty tables? Then play heads up, three-handed, four-handed etc as people (mostly fish) come and join your table?

Wow. That does sound like a great way to learn to play short handed. Is this profitable?

[GrunchCan]

Yep, that's what I do. I've been doing that for at least 50k hands. It's my favorite way to start playing. Hugely profitable. Very educational.

[MrWookie47]

How long does it typically take for the fish to join you? I like sitting down at short tables, but I'm concerned that no one will join me if I'm as lonely as a smelly hippie in a goth club.

[GrunchCan]

It doesn't take long usually. Sometimes it takes a while for the first person to sit down. So I'll have serveral tables up, like rat traps loaded with fresh cheese. But then once someone sits, they start flowing in. I'd say that within 15-30 minutes of the first person sitting dowm, I usually have a full ring going.